Telephoto

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Camera Equipment : One Thread

I'm having the typical beginners delima on lenses and hoping to get some input from those of you with experience with the following lenses. I am struggling with creating a versatile lens lineup and I'm opting for quality lenses that I won't grow out of. I have started with the Canon 20mm f/2.8, and the 100mm f/2.8 USM macro. I'm debating at the moment about telephoto capability. I will be primarily being doing nature photography, and I hope to have the lens capacity to do some birds in flight (I live in Florida and can get relatively close to the birds I want to photograph). I can't afford the really big gray lenses. Zooms I am considering are 70-200 f/2.8 (with 1.4 and 2x extenders) versus 100-400 IS. I actually think the 70-200 f/2.8 would be a perfect lens with IS. There are just times when I don't want to have to use the tripod, although usually I will. the 100-400IS seems like a relatively inexpensive way to get to 400mm with IS. Just wondering what you give up. Bob Atkins seems to see a loss in sharpness compared to the 300 f/4. Those of you with the 100-400, do you miss the f-stop and how is the quality of your photos? Another possibility within the same price range, is to go with the prime Canon lens, 200mm f/2.8 with extenders to reach the 280 and 300mm range. Gets me some verstility, but I give up IS. And finally, I think the 300 f/4 IS is a great lens for the price. With the 1.4x I get to 400 with an okay f-stop. Anyone have any thoughts on this dilema?

Regarding the big bucks lenses. Just curious about something. I know most nature photographers go with the 300,400 (f/2.8) if they have the budget. However, occured to me that if one could afford one of these big lenses, one could go with the 200mm f/1.4? With extenders, one could have up to 400mm with an incredible f-stop all the way up to 400 mm at f/2.8. Any thoughts on this?

Thanks for your input.

-- Jessie (jessiew12@hotmail.com), May 15, 2001

Answers

Correction. Meant to say 200mm f/1.8, which would become a 400mm f/3.6 when using the 2x extender.

-- Jessie (jessiew12@hotmail.com), May 16, 2001.

It's a bit surprising that none of the Canon users have replied, Jessie, so let's see whether I can kick-start the debate with a sideways look at your need.

Enthusiasts for taking bird photographs tend to maintain that you have to use 500mm or 600mm, and maybe a 1.4x converter as well. Long glass like that costs well over $6000 from Canon and well over $3000 from Sigma. When you find you need the long glass, a cheaper option is to hunt for a good deal on a secondhand manual focus lens ... and not to mind whose glass it is!

That's because such a lens is going to cost nearly $1000, and for little over another $100 you could add a tri-mode camera like the Canon AE-1P or the Minolta X-700, or an indestructible all-manual camera like the Nikon FM or the Pentax K-1000. Compared with the saving on the lens -- compared even with the cost of the tripod you'd need for long glass -- the cost of a dedicated camera body is modest.

Manual focus lenses -- particularly from brands that changed mount on going to AF -- can be very good value. Maybe not cheap, but definitely inexpensive. I had a quick look at the stock lists for KEH.com in Atlanta, which has a Canon FD 300mm f/2.8L for $1200: "L" glass of that aperture would make a stunning 300mm and, with a converter, a thoroughly usable 600mm f/5.6. (KEH also has a Canon FD 800mm f/5.6L for $2200, which is a dream lens for two-thirds of the cost of a Sigma 500mm f/4.5.)

Later,

Dr Owl

-- John Owlett (owl@postmaster.co.uk), May 19, 2001.


Minolta X700 body ($200) for current body. Minolta SRT-101 ($125) for older body that is built like a tank. Minolta Rokkor-X 300mm f4.5 lens $250 Minolta 2x teleconverter $40

This is a great starter rig (I have it) and is way less expensive than autofocus or even Canon or Nikon equivs.

If you really want AF, try Minolta's Maxxum... $3000 for a 600mm f4 autofocus lens. Pick up a 7xi body for $250 or so and you're set. (The 600mm price is from 2 recent eBay auctions.. The lens is APO and a huge white rocket!)

Whatever you choose, stick with it. :-)

-- Don Tuleja (durocshark@photo.net), May 21, 2001.


Jessie,

I have tried the 200f2.8 and 300f4 IS with 1.4x and 2x EF converters. I've also tried the 75-300IS. Finally, I've tried the 100-400IS without converters. My conclusion for shooting big birds in flight is the 100-400IS. It was very convenient to zoom as needed. It was also useful to have the horizontal panning feature of the 100-400IS. The problem was shooting smaller birds. For this I have tried the zoom with the 1.4x converter with mixed results. I think that a 500 or 600 with converter would be the way to go. You will also need a good tripod.

You may also want to check Arthur Morris' site for additional info on shooting birds.

Good luck.

-- Alex Tran (alexltran@yahoo.com), May 22, 2001.


Dr. Owl, thanks for getting it rolling, and also for the helpful comments from Don, and Alex. I am currently test driving the 100- 400IS. Have had the opportunity to shoot a role also with the 70-200 f/2.8 and the 300 f/2.8 for a few hours. Nothing like first hand experience for making these kinds of decisions. As one would expect the 300 f/2.8 lens is awesome in everyway (in terms of price, weight, and IMAGE!) The 70-200 f/ 2.8 produced a spectacular image as well (no exptenders tried). I am currently test driving the 100-400IS and have decided that given the obvious versatility of this lens, if it comes close enough to the other two in image quality, I will go with it. Thanks again for your imput.

Jessie

-- jessie (jessiew12@hotmail.com), May 23, 2001.



So which one you finally got?

-- Raivo (raivo@stones.com), June 21, 2001.

Birdsasart.com, the web site of Arthur Morris, is certainly worth a visit; it has an FAQ on lenses for bird photography. He especially likes the Canon 400/5.6L for hand-held photography of birds in flight, and the Canon 100-400L for its versatility. For a discussion of the choice between those two lenses, see this thread from the telephoto lenses section of photo.net's archived Nature forum:

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=001QOF

-- Michael Lopez (mlopez@ers.usda.gov), July 02, 2001.


Thanks for all your comments. I purchased the 100-400. It is a wonderful lens. Sharp, contrast excellent, and very versatile. I love the IS. Purchased the 28-135 IS, as it seemed a perfect compliment in terms of focal length when traveling. Not as impressed with this lens, but then it isn't a L series lens. Does what it is suppose to do. Anyway, just got back from a trip overseas. Took three canon lenses; 100-400, 28-135, and my 20 f/2.8. Pretty much covered everything I wanted to shoot. Very happy with my 100-400 IS.

-- Jessie (Jessiew12@hotmail.com), July 02, 2001.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ